59 



Mr. Miller. The discussion I was having is about out-of-project 



transfers outside the CVP to some other 



Mr. DoOLitTLE. I understand that, and he is talking- 



Mr. Miller. Permit no applications other than what is his name, 

 Areias, as I understand it. 



Mr. DOOLITTLE. But he was talking about even sort of the rou- 

 tine things that need to go on, that used to go on and have now 

 been slowed down substantially through the Bureau of Reclamation 

 having to go through this list of — I don't know how many there are 

 here — it looks like about 13 — criteria that have to be evaluated for 

 each thing. 



The tiered pricing — Mr. Pombo was getting into this. I guess I 

 would like to. I realize the power between the Bureau and the dis- 

 trict doesn't take effect until '98, but it seems to me, you know, in 

 a year like this, you want to encourage districts to buy water and 

 recharge their groundwater. 



But now under the tiered pricing or in '98 under the tiered pric- 

 ing that, in fact, will work just to accomplish the opposite result. 

 Districts would have to pay incrementally more in order to do 

 something that is environmentally responsible and so will be a dis- 

 incentive toward improvement of the environment. And I think 

 that is something that needs to be changed, and this bill does 

 change it. 



I am going to go, Mr. Beard, in my time here before we go to a 

 vote to the representation. Apparently, the Bureau is requiring dis- 

 tricts to demonstrate the negative, that the particular water con- 

 servation techniques are not effective. Are you aware of that going 

 on, that you aire requiring districts to demonstrate — they have the 

 burden of proof, if you will, that certain techniques, in fact, are not 

 efficacious for conservation? Mr. Patterson is shaking his head 

 there. 



Mr. Beard. Yes. Why don't you go ahead? 



Mr. Patterson. Yes. We are aware of that. We were given six 

 months after this law passed to develop criteria; a very short time; 

 done in a very public way; with tons of comments. The law says 

 use best management practices. We worked closely with the State 

 of California on what were best management practices that gen- 

 erally helped with water conservation and management; listed 

 them in the criteria; told the districts to apply those, and if they 

 didn't fit their situation, because we knew we would have that situ- 

 ation tell us why they don't. It was up to the District to show why 

 they should not apply. 



Mr. DooLlTTLE. Well, Mr. Patterson, let me just ask you if you 

 would share this with us. I mean, have you ever tried to prove the 

 negative on an5^hing? 



Mr. Patterson. There are districts that, in fact, have dem- 

 onstrated why several of these don't apply. I think it can work bet- 

 ter, but there have been many exceptions granted to the criteria 

 because they didn't fit a certain situation. Can we do better? Yes. 



Mr. DOOLITTLE. I would like to join Mr. Pombo's request, when 

 you supply the justification for requiring approval of these con- 

 servation plans, show us where you have the authority to require 

 districts to bear the burden of proof relative to demonstrating par- 

 ticular conservation practices that are not efficacious for them be- 



